From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Dec  6 12:05:13 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA09491
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:05:13 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current)
Received: from whizzo.TransSys.COM (whizzo.TransSys.COM [144.202.42.10])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA09483
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 12:05:09 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from louie@whizzo.TransSys.COM)
Received: from whizzo.TransSys.COM (localhost.transsys.com [127.0.0.1]) by whizzo.TransSys.COM (8.8.7/8.7.3) with ESMTP id PAA27466; Sat, 6 Dec 1997 15:04:59 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712062004.PAA27466@whizzo.TransSys.COM>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: Shawn Ramsey <shawn@cpl.net>
cc: Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM>
Subject: Re: 3.0 -release ? 
References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971205233523.16807U-100000@picnic.mat.net> 
 <3488E112.4BD862AF@cpl.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 05 Dec 1997 21:22:26 PST."
             <3488E112.4BD862AF@cpl.net> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 1997 15:04:59 -0500
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > hmmmm...  skip BSDI.  they want to charge absurd amounts, so make them
> > > pay for their own ports..
> > 
> > Isn't that kind of narrow-minded?  Exactly the kind most people accuse
> > many commercial companies of.  FreeBSD is free, to all comers.  Do you
> > remember where doscmd came from?
> 
> Why should the FreeBSD people make the port collection work with other
> OS's? If thats not what some people were suggesting, forget this post.
> :) I see no problem with making them available for other OS's to use,
> but that is already the case isnt it? 
> 
> I would tend to agree with the statement about BSDI, whether doscmd came
> from them or anywhere else...Its a great OS, but not so great company
> behind it.

At my "day job", we have quite a few machines running BSDI, and have
been pretty happy with the support and quality of software.  They tend
not to be as far out on the "bleeding edge" with features, but this
isn't too surprising if you're trying for maximal stability.    They've
got some very smart and clever people hacking code over there, and 
with good taste.

Your characterization of "... not so great company behind it." is certainly
not universally accepted.

louie